The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the part of the lower court, even though the lower court commenced the commission of larceny, since the Defendant started a physical coloring act through windows in the course of intrusion upon the victim’s residence.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The time when the commission of larceny by misapprehending the legal doctrine begins is the time when the commission of larceny by misapprehending the legal doctrine begins to commit an act closely which infringes on another person’s de facto control over the property, and thus, in a week which is not at night, intrusion upon another person’s residence for

Even before commencing a physical activity of a stolen object, the crime of intrusion only is established, and cannot be deemed to have commenced the commission of larceny. Thus, an attempted larceny is not established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9750, Sept. 30, 2010). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, the Defendant could not search the object by a person who, in other words, intends to enter into the victim’s house by reporting that the windows have been opened, and going to the victim’s house through benda, and could not search the object by escaping from the victim’s house.

The statement to the purport that "" is stated, and the victim "I see that men who do not know about the side of the beer ward enter the area beyond the beer," and I see the snow and walk again and walk again.

In light of the fact stated, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone that the defendant had invadedd on the residence, and that the stolen object was colored.

It is difficult to recognize it.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake is rejected.

B. For three (3) days habitually, the criminal defendant was habitually punished not only by theft or attempted attempted theft of the property of KRW 97 million but also by committing the same kind of crime.

However, the defendant in 207.